Monday, January 5, 2015

Musings: Two Steps Ahead

Though some may be starting the work
week yawning and scratching, I woke up early and excited, eager to
see that fat, full moon set behind the mountains, aware that each day
is now growing longer, glad that the holidays are officially pau,
with the blank slate of a new year before us.

Over the weekend, I ran across a New York Times article about how small towns that passed laws against
fracking are now locked in legal battles. It's a situation that closely parallels
what is happening in Hawaii with the anti-GMO laws.

As the article reports:

In an aggressive response to a wave of
citizen-led drilling bans, state officials, energy companies and
industry groups are taking Longmont [Colo.] and other municipalities
to court, forcing local governments into what critics say are
expensive, long-shot efforts to defend the measures.

While the details vary — some
municipalities have voted for outright bans, and others for multiyear
suspensions of fracking — energy companies in city after city argue
that they have a right to extract underground minerals, and that the
drilling bans amount to voter-approved theft. They also say state
agencies, not individual communities, are the ones with the power to
set oil and gas rules.

Bryan Baum, a former mayor who opposed
the ban, predicted that it would fall at every level of appeal,
including at the Colorado Supreme Court, because only the state can
regulate drilling. Now, as the case heads to higher courts, Mr. Baum
said he believed many in town were developing buyer’s remorse about
the ban.

“If we took that same vote, I think
it would come out differently,” he said. “It’s cost the city a
lot. It’s not just the money that it costs to defend these — it’s
the opportunities and the industries it could’ve brought to our
community.”

Sound familiar?

The SHAKA supporters of the Maui
initiative, who initially agreed to have a federal magistrate hear
the case, withdrew their approval, perhaps because they felt that
Judge Barry Kurren, who overturned the Kauai and Big Island anti-GMO
ordinances, would deal their measure a similar fate. Kurren, who also was subjected to a smear campaign by anti-GMO activists, in keeping with their MO
of trying to discredit anyone who isn't in lock step, reassigned
the case to Judge Susan Oki Mollway.

Yet despite the financial and social
costs to Hawaii communities, and the likelihood that the laws will be
overturned on the basis of state preemption, activists are still holding out a false promise to others:

Maui stands as a beacon of hope for
other towns throughout the US who are interested in banning GMOs.

Mmm, don't count on it....

Meanwhile, the biotech industry is developing products that are genetically modified using new
methods, such as “genome editing,” that are outside the purview
of federal regulations. Which means they don't need to be approved by
federal agencies before they're field-tested and sold.

Already in the works:
herbicide-resistant canola, a corn that would create less pollution
from livestock waste, switch grass tailored for biofuel production,
Roundup-resistant grass that requires less mowing, an ornamental
plant that glows in the dark and a potato that is supposed to make
french fries less unhealthy.

But companies using the new techniques
say that if the methods were not labeled genetic engineering, novel
crops could be marketed or grown in Europe and other countries that
do not readily accept genetically modified crops.

Freedom from oversight could also open
opportunities for smaller companies and university breeders and for
the modification of less common crops. Until now, in part because of
the costs associated with regulation, crop biotechnology has been
dominated by Monsanto and a handful of other big companies working
mainly on widely grown crops like corn and soybeans.

Regulators around the world are now
grappling with whether these techniques are even considered genetic
engineering and how, if at all, they should be regulated.

“The technology is always one step
ahead of the regulators,” said Michiel van Lookeren Campagne, head
of biotechnology research at Syngenta, a seed and agricultural
chemical company.

And two steps ahead of opponents...

The article concludes:

Jennifer Kuzma, co-director of the
Genetic Engineering and Society Center at North Carolina State
University, said that there would soon be a flood of crops seeking
regulatory exemptions and that there needed to be a public discourse
about what should be regulated, in part to allay possible consumer
anxiety.

“It’s not that I think these are
risky,” she said of the crops escaping regulation. “But the very
fact that this is the route we are taking without any discussion is
troubling.”

Problem is, the GMO issue has become so
politicized and polarized that any discussion, much less one that is
reasonable and rational, is nearly impossible. Ironically, the
activists who intentionally created this divisive climate may be left scrambling as the technology shifts and the “enemy” is
no longer “Monsatan,” but dozens of small companies and
universities.

11 comments:

Anonymous
said...

I am very reasonable, but I will not have a discussion with any one who believes or cites facts regarding GMO. People who think there is any value to GMOs are not worth any conversation. These are stupid people and they kill the earth. The only way to get some balance in the GMO subject is to have a forum of like minds and come up with a real solution. No solution should involve the people who kill the earth. We need group-think to create a paradigm, a real "out of the box" strategy, an iconic system that can be the banner for world sustainability. We are the little island that could and we will arouse the million little fistees.Namaste and peace and harmony to the world.

A concern troll is a false flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of view is opposed to the one that the troll claims to hold... The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group.[38]...Two studies published in 2013 and 2014 have found that people who are identified as trolls tend to have dark personality traits and show signs of sadism, antisocial behavior, psychopathy, and machiavellianism.[36][37] The 2013 study suggested that there are a number of similarities between anti-social and flame trolling activities[36] and the 2014 study suggested that the noxious personality characteristics known as the "dark triad of personality" should be investigated in the analysis of trolling, and concluded that trolling appears "to be an Internet manifestation of everyday sadism."[37] Their relevance is suggested by research linking these traits to bullying in both adolescents and adults. The 2014 study found that trolls operate as agents of chaos on the Internet, exploiting hot-button issues to make users appear overly emotional or foolish in some manner. If an unfortunate person falls into their trap, trolling intensiﬁes for further, merciless amusement."

12:17 Welp. It looks like you fell into 8:57's perfidious and sardonic troll trap, as detailed in your laborious and byzantine response.8:57 appears to have outlined da Hoos, Mason and JoAnn's idear of the perfect individual to be part of a groupthink cabal that make rules and regs regarding agriculture.Please lighten up.

The legal strategies used against fracking and biotech farming may appear similar, but the rationale of the underlying arguments couldn't be more different.

Fracking produces fossil fuels that are implicated in global warming. There is well-documented evidence of ground water contamination by the chemicals in fracking fluid. Fracking requires vast amounts of water and depletes a valuable resource, often in areas where water is already scarce. These facts are well documented, unlike all of the claims made by opponents of biotech ag.

Parallels in legal strategies are interesting, maybe even instructive, but that's where the similarities end.

Actually fracking does very little to contaminate ground water that is already at the level of the petroleum deposit. And as far as those silly movies showing flaming water pipes, they have been thourouly debunked by no less than the EPA. Likewise global warming. Clearly the models are wrong, wrong, wrong. Fifteen years with no rise in average temperatures in spite of NOAAs efforts to alter data to further the agenda. Ace hardware is sold out of firewood.